August 10, 2012 – Amway President Doug DeVos donated half a million dollars to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). On August 3, his donation came under attack by gay activist Fred Karger’s Rights Equal Rights organization in the form of a global boycott.

The reason for the boycott, according to RightsEqualRights.com , is to “support our friends and…keep pressure on the mega-donors to NOM and other likeminded organizations and individuals who so vigorously oppose Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) equality.”

NOM has recently urged boycotts of Starbucks and General Mills, who have donated significant sums of money to supporting gay “marriage,” which Rights Equal Rights gives as further reason for the boycott of Amway.

But the difference, according to NOM President Brian Brown, is that “unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company. But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society.”

A spokeswoman for Amway emphasised this difference between private and corporate action.“As private citizens, the DeVos family supports causes and organizations that advocate for policies aligned to their personal beliefs,” she said.

“[The family believes] one of the highest callings of any individual is to express their own personal beliefs as a participant in the democratic process.”

Karger, however, appears determined to continue with the boycott, calling NOM a “known hate group” in an August 9 Huffington Post article.

While NOM says its mission is “to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it,” Karger says its “goal appears to be harming Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Americans.”

“NOM constantly defends anti-LGBT companies like its ally Chick-fil-A and its owner for hateful and bigoted comments and actions,” said Karger.“NOM has that right under our First Amendment and so do we.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

The Rights Equal Rights website states,“A global boycott of Amway will let others know that there are consequences of giving massive amounts of money to take away the rights of a minority.”

Amway has responded, clarifying that it does not discriminate in any way.

“Our employees and distributors come from all walks of life and represent an incredibly diverse set of backgrounds,” said the spokeswoman for Amway.“The Amway opportunity is open to everyone.”

Karger has directed four previous boycotts against other major donors to NOM and Yes on Proposition 8. Two of those donors have settled, donating a like amount to LGBT organizations. One of those companies, Bolthouse Farms, gave $110,000 to homosexualist groups after donating $100,000 to Yes on Proposition 8.

“As…with our four other boycott targets,” Karger says,“we at Rights Equal Rights remain open to a possible settlement of the Amway/Alticor Boycott at any time.”

Amway stands by the statement that Doug DeVos has a right to donate his personal money where he wishes.

The majority of women with chlamydia do not have symptoms. Cervicitis (infection of the uterine cervix) is the most common manifestation of the infection. While about half of women with chlamydial cervicitis have no symptoms, others may experience vaginal discharge or abdominal pain. Infection of the urethra is often associated with chlamydial infection of the cervix. Women with infection of the urethra (urethritis) have the typical symptoms of a urinary tract infection, including pain upon urination and the frequent and urgent need to urinate.

Chlamydia is very destructive to the Fallopian tubes. It can also cause severe pelvic infection. If untreated, about 30% of women with chlamydia will develop pelvic inflammatory disease (PID; see above). Because it is common for infected women to have no symptoms, chlamydial infection is often untreated and results in extensive destruction of the Fallopian tubes, fertility problems and tubal pregnancy.

Chlamydial infection, like gonorrhea, is associated with an increased incidence of premature births. In addition, the infant can acquire the infection during passage through the infected birth canal, leading to serious eye damage or pneumonia. For this reason, all newborns are treated with eye drops containing an antibiotic that kills chlamydia. Treatment of all newborns is routine because of the large number of infected women without symptoms and the dire consequences of chlamydial eye infection to the newborn.

A federal judge has ruled that individuals do not have the privilege under Washington state's open records procedures to keep their names secret when they sign a ballot issue petition – even if they are facing death threats because of that signature..The stunning ruling comes from Judge Benjamin Settle, who this week released the names of some 138,000 Washington residents who signed a petition several years ago seeking a statewide vote on whether homosexuals should be given essentially the same benefits as married couples..The effort to overturn the state law granting those benefits failed, but the court dispute continued after homosexual activists promised they would get the names of those who wanted to protect traditional marriage and post them online so that they could encourage supporters of homosexuality to create "uncomfortable conversations" with the signers..

Then came, according to hundreds of pages of sworn statements, the death threats to those who, in one way or another, already had been identified as petition supporters and signers.

.

Among the many documented threats was the statement, "I will kill you and your family," which was delivered to the young son of a political candidate, Elizabeth Scott, who had signed the petition..

A newspaper story revealing that she had signed the petition appeared in the morning, and at 6 p.m. that evening, the telephone call with the threat was made to her unlisted telephone number..

She also was the target of the threat on a YouTube video, which included, "This woman is so f---ing stupid. Why doesn't someone just shoot her in the head again and again. And again."

.

She told authorities that the issue will continue, as there remain issues about children being identified to those making the threats, and the precedent will create an atmosphere of fear for anyone who may be asked in the future to sign a petition protecting family or traditional values.

.

Lawyers behind the traditional family supporters confirmed that the state immediately released the names of the petition signers when the judge's order came out, but they have filed an emergency request for an injunction, concerned over the precedent that such a decision will create.

.

In fact, the threats that came against the signers should have been reason to keep the list under cover.."We have argued that our cause was an unusual circumstance which put pro-marriage citizens who participated in the R-71 initiative process in danger of unwanted threatening calls, contacts or worse, and should be handled with discretion and consideration.."We have argued that releasing the signatures would create a chilling effect on all future initiative efforts regarding homosexual efforts to redefine the culture. The decision to release the names is bad news for Washington state. I believe there will be more harassment, and I pray to God there isn't more than that.".The coalition called Protect Marriage Washington, which organized the petition campaign, had filed a lawsuit more than two years ago to block the release of the names of those who signed Referendum 71 after "two militant homosexual activist groups vowed to reveal the names of signers on a pair of search able websites, whosigned.org and knowthyneighbor.org ; and to encourage their readers to initiate 'uncomfortable conversations' with signers.".

The organization introduced into court evidence including death threats, extensive vandalism, threats of destruction of property, arson and threats of arson, intimidating emails and phone calls, mailed envelopes containing suspicious white powders, blacklists, loss of employment and job opportunities, gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry including vandalism at religious institution "all for doing nothing more than standing up for traditional marriage.".Settle's opinion, however, said he didn't think there was a "reasonable probability" the threats still exist for the signers as nearly two years have passed since the referendum was submitted to voters..Protect Marriage Washington attorney Stephen Pidgeon said the decision was a "dramatic setback to the right of privacy in the state of Washington. There were death threats, acts of violence, harassment and published declarations that there would be harassment. The court erred.".

The Referendum 71 effort was in response to the Washington state legislature's adoption of its "everything but marriage" act . Lawmakers granted virtually all rights of "marriage" to homosexual and lesbian duos.

.

Scott also issued a statement that Judge Settle's decision was disappointing.

.

"Extremists issued multiple death threats to me and my children due to my being publicly questioned about my personal beliefs. I am greatly concerned for both the safety and the freedom of speech of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, a definition that Americans have upheld in every state that has put it on the ballot."

.

When the dispute was at the Supreme Court, the justices ruled that the names generally should be public, but there could be exceptions when there are threats. Settle said that the plaintiffs in the case already were known as referendum supporters and none was really concerned that their personally identifying information was available.

.

But critics of the judge, a former general private practice attorney, noted that in order to introduce evidence to the court about the threats, the names of the threat victims were, in fact, forced into the public arena.

.

Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center has explained that the issue is more than just the revelation of some names. It is, he said, "that some groups and individuals, certainly a minority, have resorted to advancing their cause, not by debating the merits of the issue but by discouraging participation in the democratic process itself.

."The First Amendment was designed to ensure that all groups, whatever their persuasion, could participate fully in our republic," he said. "That breaks down when some groups or individuals are cowed into silence for fear that they or their families will be targeted or threatened if they speak up.".

Part of the issue, too, was that the Washington issue got the public's attention only a short time after voters in California simply reversed a same-sex "marriage" mandate by that state's Supreme Court, defining in their constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

.A homosexual judge later overturned that law, and the fight remains in the courts.

.

But actual threats that were documented included:

* "I'm going to kill the pastor."

* "If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter…"

Evidence also included churches marred by graffiti, swastikas on lawns and walls, bricks thrown through windows and doors, adhesive poured into locks, suspicious packages of white powder sent in the mail – "all for nothing more than supporting traditional marriage.".The court in the case was informed, "When some activists could sense that intimidation was not working … they resorted to threatening the families – even the children – of supporters. In one case, the perpetrator threated to 'kill' the supporter's child and the whole family; in another, to 'harm' the supporter's family; and in another, to rape the supporters' daughter."

Homosexuals Issue Death Threats Again Pro-Family Signers Court Orders release of signatures sought by homosexual activists promising confrontations.Posted: October 19, 2012.A federal judge has ruled that individuals do not have the privilege under Washington state's open records procedures to keep their names secret when they sign a ballot issue petition – even if they are facing death threats because of that signature..The stunning ruling comes from Judge Benjamin Settle, who this week released the names of some 138,000 Washington residents who signed a petition several years ago seeking a statewide vote on whether homosexuals should be given essentially the same benefits as married couples..The effort to overturn the state law granting those benefits failed, but the court dispute continued after homosexual activists promised they would get the names of those who wanted to protect traditional marriage and post them online so that they could encourage supporters of homosexuality to create "uncomfortable conversations" with the signers..Then came, according to hundreds of pages of sworn statements, the death threats to those who, in one way or another, already had been identified as petition supporters and signers..Among the many documented threats was the statement, "I will kill you and your family," which was delivered to the young son of a political candidate, Elizabeth Scott, who had signed the petition..A newspaper story revealing that she had signed the petition appeared in the morning, and at 6 p.m. that evening, the telephone call with the threat was made to her unlisted telephone number..She also was the target of the threat on a YouTube video, which included, "This woman is so f---ing stupid. Why doesn't someone just shoot her in the head again and again. And again.".She told authorities that the issue will continue, as there remain issues about children being identified to those making the threats, and the precedent will create an atmosphere of fear for anyone who may be asked in the future to sign a petition protecting family or traditional values..Lawyers behind the traditional family supporters confirmed that the state immediately released the names of the petition signers when the judge's order came out, but they have filed an emergency request for an injunction, concerned over the precedent that such a decision will create..In fact, the threats that came against the signers should have been reason to keep the list under cover.."We have argued that our cause was an unusual circumstance which put pro-marriage citizens who participated in the R-71 initiative process in danger of unwanted threatening calls, contacts or worse, and should be handled with discretion and consideration.."We have argued that releasing the signatures would create a chilling effect on all future initiative efforts regarding homosexual efforts to redefine the culture. The decision to release the names is bad news for Washington state. I believe there will be more harassment, and I pray to God there isn't more than that.".The coalition called Protect Marriage Washington, which organized the petition campaign, had filed a lawsuit more than two years ago to block the release of the names of those who signed Referendum 71 after "two militant homosexual activist groups vowed to reveal the names of signers on a pair of search able websites, whosigned.org and knowthyneighbor.org ; and to encourage their readers to initiate 'uncomfortable conversations' with signers.".

10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be OpposedBy TFP Student Action Share1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man.(Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

August 10, 2012 Â– Amway President Doug DeVos donated half a million dollars to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). On August 3, his donation came under attack by gay activist Fred KargerÂ’s Rights Equal Rights organization in the form of a global boycott.

The reason for the boycott, according to RightsEqualRights.com , is to Â“support our friends andÂ…keep pressure on the mega-donors to NOM and other likeminded organizations and individuals who so vigorously oppose Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) equality.Â”

NOM has recently urged boycotts of Starbucks and General Mills, who have donated significant sums of money to supporting gay Â“marriage,Â” which Rights Equal Rights gives as further reason for the boycott of Amway.

But the difference, according to NOM President Brian Brown, is that Â“unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company. But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society.Â”

A spokeswoman for Amway emphasised this difference between private and corporate action.Â“As private citizens, the DeVos family supports causes and organizations that advocate for policies aligned to their personal beliefs,Â” she said.

Â“[The family believes] one of the highest callings of any individual is to express their own personal beliefs as a participant in the democratic process.Â”

Karger, however, appears determined to continue with the boycott, calling NOM a Â“known hate groupÂ” in an August 9 Huffington Post article.

While NOM says its mission is Â“to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it,Â” Karger says its Â“goal appears to be harming Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Americans.Â”

Â“NOM constantly defends anti-LGBT companies like its ally Chick-fil-A and its owner for hateful and bigoted comments and actions,Â” said Karger.Â“NOM has that right under our First Amendment and so do we.Â”

Click Â“likeÂ” if you want to defend true marriage.

The Rights Equal Rights website states,Â“A global boycott of Amway will let others know that there are consequences of giving massive amounts of money to take away the rights of a minority.Â”

Amway has responded, clarifying that it does not discriminate in any way.

Â“Our employees and distributors come from all walks of life and represent an incredibly diverse set of backgrounds,Â” said the spokeswoman for Amway.Â“The Amway opportunity is open to everyone.Â”

Karger has directed four previous boycotts against other major donors to NOM and Yes on Proposition 8. Two of those donors have settled, donating a like amount to LGBT organizations. One of those companies, Bolthouse Farms, gave $110,000 to homosexualist groups after donating $100,000 to Yes on Proposition 8.

Â“AsÂ…with our four other boycott targets,Â” Karger says,Â“we at Rights Equal Rights remain open to a possible settlement of the Amway/Alticor Boycott at any time.Â”

Amway stands by the statement that Doug DeVos has a right to donate his personal money where he wishes.

I agree with Amway; Doug DeVos can donate his personal money any where he wants. This in still the USA & we still have some personal freedoms in this country.

Washington DC, August 2, 2012,– As Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day wrapped up Wednesday evening, it took a long time for the dust and feathers to settle.

Almost 700,000 people signed up for Mike Huckabee’s event on Facebook, and from all reports they made good on their promise to stand up for free speech and religious freedom by eatin’“mo chickin.’”

The event was a record setter, according to a statement from Steve Robinson, Chick-fil-A’s executive vice president of marketing, who said:“While we don’t release exact sale numbers, we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day.”

“We are very grateful and humbled by the incredible turnout of loyal Chick-fil-A customers on August 1 at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country,” Robinson said.“We congratulate local Chick-fil-A Owner/Operators and their team members for striving to serve each and every customer with genuine hospitality.”

Word that the fast-food chain had set a record leaked out unofficially on Wednesday evening, when mega-church pastor Rick Warren tweeted:“@DanCathy just called me.#ChickFilA has already set a world record today, with 7 more hrs to go in the West.#OutOfChicken”

Supporters lined the blocks around fast-food joints and car traffic took up stretches of road, as supporters waited patiently for their turn to order yesterday - on some occasions for several hours.

Huckebee said on his radio show that he was “giddy” about the result of his initiative, which was launched to support Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s stance in favor of traditional marriage.“People are voting with their feet today,” Huckabee said.“I guess you could also say they are voting with their faces, they are stuffing them with chicken sandwiches, those lovely Chicken sandwiches from Chick-fil-A.”

Mayor Rahm Emmanuel appears to have misheard his constituents when he said,“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values.” Huckabee posted pictures of lines going around the block at a Chicago Chick-fil-A, saying,“This is Chicago? Really? It looks like Mayor Emanuel may be wrong about Chicago resident’s values. The lines are long there too.”

ABC reports that one location in Georgia had to shut down early and turn away hopeful customers after running out of chicken.

CEO Cathy himself showed up at one Georgia chain, where he thanked people in the drive-thru. Cathy unintentionally launched the national movement when he confirmed that his company supports traditional marriage, saying,““We are very much supportive of the family. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.”

After gay rights activists responded with a deluge of criticism, supporters of marriage rallied to Chick-Fil-A’s defense, culminating in yesterdays “Appreciation Day.”

At one Wisconsin chain, pro-life leader Dan Zeidler was in line for over two hours with his wife and a friend. According to his estimates, many would not be served because “there are hundreds of people in line” and the “mall closes at 9 pm.”(At the time, it was 7:30 in the evening.)

“Young, middle-aged, and old guys like me, but everyone is in a good mood, visiting with strangers (new friends?), and glad to witness for the Family and Freedom on this ‘ObamaCare D-Day,’” he said.

One customer, Dave Jackson, 38, a consultant said,“It’s all about freedom of speech.” He also thought it was “ironic” that liberal leaders were harshly attacking Dan Cathy when President Obama held the same views only a few short months ago.

David Deck, a Chick-fil-A worker, said the amount of costumers was “crazy,”“It’s more than we make at Christmas, which is the busiest time of the year for us.”

Phil and Marla Burton of Arlington, Virginia, said they would be coming back,“The food is good!” And the chain’s observance of the Sabbath “shows [Dan Cathy is] an admirable person,” they said.

>An analysis of FBI statistics on hate crimes committed against homosexuals during the time period 2000-2008 shows that the probability of any individual homosexual being the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is slightly more than one percent.[2] Interestingly,“gays” are more likely to commit hate crimes against “straights” than “straights” are to commit hate crimes against “gays.” According to the FBI, there are 3.98 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals, and there are 4.44 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.[3]

Violence against homosexuals by others gets all the press, but it is interesting to note that the great majority of anti-”gay” violence is committed by other “gays.” The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) is the leading tracker of violence against “gays” in the United States. According to the NCAVP’s statistics on anti-”gay” violence, 83 percent of all violence committed against “gays” is carried out by other “gays” in domestic situations. This does not even count “gay-on-gay” violence committed outside the home.[4]

This confusion is now pervasive in society, and questioning the agenda is simply not to be tolerated – especially among America’s youth.

For example, the classical notion that universities should be “arenas for the free exchange of ideas” has been completely discarded in the United States. More than three-fourths of U.S. colleges and universities now possess codes of conduct that ban behavior and speech based upon, including many other things,“homophobia.” The danger that these codes represent to academic freedom far outweighs their usefulness. This has already been amply demonstrated, as many colleges have severely punished students for merely desiring to debate the topic of homosexuality.

The squashing of dissenting views on homosexuality in the classroom has been going on for decades now. In 1991, a student at the University of Michigan announced his intention to establish a counseling program to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle. He was dragged before a panel of university administrators, unanimously found guilty of “sexual harassment,” and was thrown out of the university.[5] In 2000, the Student Judiciary of Tufts University voted officially to “derecognize” the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) club for taking into account, for purposes of selecting leaders, the beliefs of a member whose views of Scripture and homosexuality were opposed to their own.[6] The TCF was stripped of funding, not permitted to use the Tufts name, not permitted to meet in any room that required a reservation, and not allowed to advertise or announce any of their events or meetings. In 2011, a Fort Worth, Texas high school student was suspended from school for reportedly saying,“I’m a Christian, and I don’t think being gay is right,” during a class discussion.[7] And teachers don’t have it any easier. In 2010 a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign was accused of “hate speech” and relieved of his teaching duties for teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in his Introduction to Catholicism class.[8]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>Then you also agree it is perfectly acceptable for people to boycott Amway. In other words, this is a non-story.

Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain, while highlighting the dangers presented by codes against racism, also points out the difficulties associated with all punitive codes of this nature:“My hunch is that, over the long haul, the upshot of such endeavors [college speech codes] will not be a purified, racist-free, collective student consciousness, but a simmering backlog of resentment at being labeled as a racist, even if one has never committed a racist act or uttered a racist slur.”[9]

No one should attempt to deny homosexuals their basic human rights; which are the same basic rights that we all have as being sons and daughters of God. But it has gotten to the point where we have to fight to preserve our own basic rights — the rights to free speech, religion, assembly, and teaching our own children our values – in order to protect our own families and institutions.

Those who promote homosexuality are forcibly tearing away more and more of the rights of Christians, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Who could have possibly imagined just a few years ago that companies would start firing people for writing pro-family articles on their own time, or business owners would be sued for refusing to participate in homosexual union ceremonies?

Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain, while highlighting the dangers presented by codes against racism, also points out the difficulties associated with all punitive codes of this nature:“My hunch is that, over the long haul, the upshot of such endeavors [college speech codes] will not be a purified, racist-free, collective student consciousness, but a simmering backlog of resentment at being labeled as a racist, even if one has never committed a racist act or uttered a racist slur.”[9]No one should attempt to deny homosexuals their basic human rights; which are the same basic rights that we all have as being sons and daughters of God. But it has gotten to the point where we have to fight to preserve our own basic rights — the rights to free speech, religion, assembly, and teaching our own children our values – in order to protect our own families and institutions.Those who promote homosexuality are forcibly tearing away more and more of the rights of Christians, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Who could have possibly imagined just a few years ago that companies would start firing people for writing pro-family articles on their own time, or business owners would be sued for refusing to participate in homosexual union ceremonies?[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) annual report entitled “Hate Crime Statistics.” Table 1,“Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation.” http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm .

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.